The AskPhilosophers logo.

Knowledge

Are there any other ways of arguing against the apparent abilities of Mediums other than by pointing towards the alternative naturalistic explanations for their 'results'. I'm getting very tired of having to provide answers to the 'well how else do you explain X?' response (and pointing out that even if I can't explain X, it doesn't make X true by default). Perhaps there's a way of showing how the idea of disembodied souls is flawed in the first place, or debunking a similar aspect of the background theory. I'm getting very concerned that my Mother-in-law's fascination with the Mediums on TV and and in the books she reads may lead to her wasting lots of money she can't really afford.
Accepted:
November 24, 2010

Comments

Miriam Solomon
December 2, 2010 (changed December 2, 2010) Permalink

If Mediums did get "results" then it would be rational to go to them for advice i.e. not a waste of time!

So I think the thing to focus on is the results, and ask the question, are the amazing pronouncements just coincidences and/or wise vague sayings? There's no shortcut to answering this--it is an empirical question. Remembering of course, that Mediums, TV and authors don't always report reliably.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/3701
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org